alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Raymond CHOTKEY, Petitioner, v. Robert R. RAINES, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary, Respondent.

No. A-13071.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma,

March 21, 1962.

*33Raymond Chotkey, petitioner, pro se.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Lewis A. Wallace, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This is an original proceeding in habeas corpus whereby petitioner seeks his release from the Oklahoma State Penitentiary, where he is confined by reason of a judgment and sentence rendered on the 8th day of July, 1958, in the District Court of Ok-fuskee County, Oklahoma, wherein he was convicted, upon plea of guilty, for the crime of murder.

Defendant contends in his petition that at the time he plead guilty he was illiterate and inexperienced in the law yet was permitted to enter a plea without benefit of counsel and was therefore denied his constitutional rights.

The attorney general filed a response in said cause and attached thereto was a certified copy of the transcript taken at the time of plea, judgment and sentence. The following is therein reported:

> “BY THE COURT:

> “Q. All right, Raymond, you have heard the reading of the information, do you understand it ? You know what you are charged with?

> “A. Yes, sir.

> “Q. You know you are charged with murder in the first degree ? And Court tells you now you have a right to a lawyer if you want one. Have you talked to a lawyer about 'this case at all?

> “A. No, sir.

> “Q. Do you want to talk to one ?

> “A. No.

> “Q. You understand the court will appoint you one at the state’s expense ?

> “A. Yes.

> “Q. You got a right to it, if you want it. You tell me again you understand the English language and understand the reading of it, you know what this information says? You realized that any sentence you get the very minimum you could get will be life imprisonment. You understand that, do you?

> “A. Yes.”

It appears from the transcript of the proceedings that the trial judge had properly advised the petitioner of his constitutional rights to the service of an attorney at the state’s expense. The offer was obviously refused. This court is thoroughly aware of a defendant’s constitutional right to counsel. The court likewise, has held that the right to counsel may be waived. It was held in the case of Ex parte Ray, 87 Okl.Cr. 436, 198 P.2d 756 that:

> “A person prosecuted for a crime may waive constitutional rights to a trial by jury, representation by counsel * * *

Though defendant contends that he was denied counsel the record does not bear out his contention.

In Ex parte Sherrill, Okl.Cr., 285 P.2d 469, this Court stated:

> “There is a presumption in favor of the regularity of proceedings before the trial court and the burden is on one who attacks such proceedings to show there was irregularity sufficient in nature to deprive the court of jurisdiction to render the particular judgment.” Also see Cottrell v. McLeod, Okl.Cr., 342 P.2d 240.

A review of the record before us compels the Court to hold that petitioner waived his rights to counsel and therefore is not entitled to relief by habeas corpus.

The writ is denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 32


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

          In connection with the Quarterly Report of Seamless Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Albert Reda, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     2.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company.


/s/ Albert Reda
---------------------------
Albert Reda,
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
July 13, 2009
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 113 (Thursday, July 26, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5327]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

           By Mr. CONYERS:
       H.R. 6210.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution.
```
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 241 (Monday, December 18, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 87459]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27707]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. DEA-1306]


Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: AJNA 
BioSciences

AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.

ACTION: Notice of application.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: AJNA BioSciences has applied to be registered as a bulk 
manufacturer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to 
Supplementary Information listed below for further drug information.

DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), 
and applicants therefore, may submit electronic comments on or 
objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before 
February 16, 2024. Such persons may also file a written request for a 
hearing on the application on or before February 16, 2024.

ADDRESSES: The Drug Enforcement Administration requires that all 
comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking 
Portal, which provides the ability to type short comments directly into 
the comment field on the web page or attach a file for lengthier 
comments. Please go to https://www.regulations.gov and follow the 
online instructions at that site for submitting comments. Upon 
submission of your comment, you will receive a Comment Tracking Number. 
Please be aware that submitted comments are not instantaneously 
available for public view on https://www.regulations.gov. If you have 
received a Comment Tracking Number, your comment has been successfully 
submitted and there is no need to resubmit the same comment.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this 
is notice that on September 20, 2023, AJNA BioSciences, 8022 Southpark 
Circle, Suite 500, Littleton, Colorado 80120-5659, applied to be 
registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic class(es) of 
controlled substance(s):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Drug
          Controlled substance             code          Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Psilocybin..............................    7437  I
Psilocyn................................    7438  I
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to bulk manufacture by cultivating research Good 
Manufacturing Practices whole plant mushrooms containing Psilocybin 
(7437) and Psilocyn (7438) to support internal research, clinical 
trials, and analytical purposes as well as to distribute to their 
customers conducting schedule I clinical research. No other activities 
for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.

Claude Redd,
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2023-27707 Filed 12-15-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
# C_2008008EN.01002302.xml

| 12.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 8/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 8/23

---

Action brought on 16 November 2007 — Jurado Hermanos, S.L. v OHIM (JURADO)

(Case T-410/07)

(2008/C 8/42)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Jurado Hermanos, S.L. (Alicante, Spain) (represented by C. Martín Álvarez, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 3 September 2007 in Case R 866/2007-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 3 September 2007 in Case R 866/2007-2;

| — | Give judgment on the merits of the case, recognising JURADO HERMANOS, S.L., as an interested party in the renewal procedure for Community trade mark No 240.218, JURADO HERMANOS, S.L. being the exclusive and registered licensee of that mark, and acceding to the application for restitutio in integrum filed by JURADO HERMANOS, S.L. in relation to the renewal of the Community trade mark No 240.218, and |
| --- | --- |

—

Give judgment on the merits of the case, recognising JURADO HERMANOS, S.L., as an interested party in the renewal procedure for Community trade mark No 240.218, JURADO HERMANOS, S.L. being the exclusive and registered licensee of that mark, and acceding to the application for restitutio in integrum filed by JURADO HERMANOS, S.L. in relation to the renewal of the Community trade mark No 240.218, and

restitutio in integrum

| — | Order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: word mark ‘JURADO’ (Application No 240.218).

Community trade mark concerned:

Goods or Services: goods in Class 30.

Goods or Services:

Proprietor of the trade mark which is the subject of the application: CAFETAL DE COSTA RICA S.A.

Proprietor of the trade mark which is the subject of the application:

Decision of the Examiner: dismissal by the Administration of Trade Marks and Legal Division of the application for restitutio in integrum brought by the applicant, the licensee of the trade mark in question, as a result of the cancellation of the registration of that trade mark, owing to the failure of the proprietor to seek the appropriate renewal.

Decision of the Examiner:

restitutio in integrum

Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: infringement of the right to a fair hearing and an incorrect interpretation, in the present case, of Articles 47 and 78(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.

Pleas in law:

---
Exhibit 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
           PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Edd Helms Group, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the year ending May 31, 2003, as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, W. Edd Helms,  Chief
Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
    the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The  information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated this 29th day of August 2003.

/s/W. Edd Helms, Jr.
------------------------------------------
W. Edd Helms, Jr., Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                                        <C>           <C>            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS         6-MOS          9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997   DEC-31-1997    DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997   JUN-30-1997    SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           3,881         7,136        84,684
<SECURITIES>                                         0             0             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0             0             0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0             0             0
<INVENTORY>                                     45,414        56,305        48,980
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                83,901       121,929       198,701
<PP&E>                                         326,526       391,988       411,303
<DEPRECIATION>                                 111,837       116,768       129,824
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 321,406       434,371       519,491
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           54,831        79,863        80,994
<BONDS>                                        119,978       202,358       276,268
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0             0             0
<PREFERRED>                                          0             0             0
<COMMON>                                             0             0             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0             0             0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   321,406       434,371       519,491
<SALES>                                        116,138       270,261       467,619
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               116,138       270,261       467,619
<CGS>                                           86,588       198,645       344,978
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  107,415       243,345       421,549
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0             0             0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0             0             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0             0             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,807        11,335        22,212
<INCOME-TAX>                                       683         4,536         8,817
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,124         6,799        13,395
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0             0             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0             0             0
<CHANGES>                                            0             0             0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,124         6,799        13,395
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.10          0.61          1.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.10          0.61          1.20


</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED July 12, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-60910 Summary Calendar

NDIAGA GUEYE Petitioner

v. ALBERTO R GONZALES, US ATTORNEY GENERAL Respondent

-------------------- Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A78 140 127

-------------------- Before KING, WIENER and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Ndiaga Gueye petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the immigration judge’s decision to deny his applications for asylum and withholding of removal under both the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Gueye argues that the BIA erred in determining that he had not established past persecution based on his political affiliation, a well-founded fear of future persecution, or that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured if he were returned to Senegal. He contends that heNo. 05-60910 -2- established his eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal under both the INA and the CAT by adducing evidence concerning the likelihood that Senegalese officials will persecute him based on his membership in the Movement for Democratic Forces in Casamance (MFDC). The record evidence in the instant case does not compel a conclusion contrary to the BIA’s determination that Gueye was not entitled to asylum or withholding of removal under the INA. See Chun v. INS , 40 F.3d 76, 78-79 (5th Cir. 1994). The search of Gueye’s home is insufficient to establish past persecution. See Shehu v. Gonzales , 443 F.3d 435, 440 & n.8 (5th Cir. 2006). The record evidence also fails to establish that Gueye has a reasonable fear of future persecution based on his MFDC membership. See Faddoul v. INS , 37 F.3d 185, 188 (5th Cir. 1994). To the contrary, Gueye has openly and safely returned to Senegal on two separate occasions. This fact alone undercuts his claim that he fears being persecuted if he is returned to Senegal. Gueye’s INA claims are unavailing. Gueye’s CAT claim is likewise unavailing, as he has failed to show that he will likely be tortured if he is returned to Senegal. See Efe v. Ashcroft , 293 F.3d 899, 907 (5th Cir. 2002). Gueye’s petition for review is DENIED.
# C_2018399EN.01005502.xml

| 5.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/55

---

Action brought on 13 September 2018 — Atos Medical v EUIPO — Andreas Fahl Medizintechnik-Vertrieb (medical plasters)

(Case T-559/18)

(2018/C 399/71)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Atos Medical GmbH (Troisdorf, Germany) (represented by: K. Middelhoff, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Andreas Fahl Medizintechnik-Vertrieb GmbH (Cologne, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Design at issue: Community design No 1339246-0009

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 June 2018 in Case R 2215/2016-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs, |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs,

Should the other party intervene in the proceedings, the applicant further claims that the Court should:

| — | order the other party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the other party to bear its own costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 4(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 4(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

| — | Infringement of Articles 5 and 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 5 and 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

| — | Infringement of Article 25(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 25(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       2,753,413
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  396,203
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,149,616
<PP&E>                                      31,998,478
<DEPRECIATION>                              20,136,095
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,029,571
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          736,462
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  14,293,109
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,029,571
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,581,457
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,869,786
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               105,066
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                606,605
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            606,605
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   606,605
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    10.50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 239 (Thursday, December 14, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 86662]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27424]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis 
Panel; Alzheimer's Disease Drug Development.
    Date: January 18, 2024.
    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 
Wisconsin Avenue, RM: 2E400, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Mariel Jais, Ph.D., M.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Institutes of Health, 
National Institute on Aging, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, RM: 2E400, 
Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594-2614, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0b666a79626e6725616a62784b656263256c647d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a5c8c4d7ccc0c98bcfc4ccd6e5cbcccd8bc2cad3">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging 
Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: December 8, 2023.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-27424 Filed 12-13-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Order entered July 20, 2017

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-17-00583-CV

CITY OF LANCASTER, Appellant

V.

WHITE ROCK COMMERCIAL, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-14-06471

ORDER

Before the Court are appellant’s July 18, 2017 motion to incorporate the record and briefs 

from interlocutory appeal and unopposed motion to extend time to file appellant’s brief. We 

GRANT appellant’s motions to the extent that we DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to transfer

the clerk’s record and reporter’s record from appellate cause number 05-16-00842-CV into this 

appeal. We ORDER appellant’s brief filed on or before September 6, 2017. 

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE